The Supreme Court: Cooling Reapportionment

In a historic decision of 1964 (Reyn olds v. Sims), the Supreme Court held that all state legislators must be elected from districts of roughly equal population — thus ensuring equal representation for all voters. But what about the application of the one-man, one-vote rule to local governmental units such as school boards, city councils and boards of county supervisors? Last week, in a partial answer, the court unanimously held the line at the state level.

Speaking for the court in four cases, Justice William O. Douglas quoted a point from the Reynolds decision: “Political subdivisions of states—counties, cities or whatever—never were and never have been considered sovereign entities.” Instead, said Justice Douglas, such subdivisions function as instruments of the state, which can make rules for choosing local administrators by any method it pleases. Unless the rules violate federal rights (by race discrimination for example), said Douglas, “we see nothing in the Constitution to prevent experimentation.”

In a Michigan case, Grand Rapids citizens sought to have the Kent County school board reapportioned. The board’s five members are chosen by elected delegates—one each from 39 local school districts of unequal size. With 55% of the county’s population, Grand Rapids has only 2.5% of the delegate voting power. Even so, Douglas approved the system because the board posts are “basically appointive rather than elective.” Also approved: a Virginia Beach, Va., plan that gives each of seven equal districts a resident city councilman but requires that they be elected by citywide ballot. Finding no “invidious discrimination,” Douglas saw the plan as a salutary “detente between urban and rural communities.”